RE: http://www.joplinglobe.com/statenews/local_story_113010049.html

This bill would have allowed almost any relative, including grandparents, to stop a woman from terminating a pregnancy, even if it endangered her life. It would have made the taxpayer responsible for paying for the legal intervention. Thank goodness the Governor vetoed it.

I, too, am glad it was vetoed... if only because as it appears to have been written, it would have become an open invitation to endless legal proceedings which, in and of themselves, would have endangered the lives of mothers and unborn children... at taxpayer expense.

I'm fairly sure that emergency interventions of that kind can already be undertaken within existing laws anyway.

Whew! That was close! Thank GOD the good Guv vetoed that so we can go on murdering babies with a clear conscience! We wouldn't want abortion mills to do anything illegal, after all. They'd be worried sick!

The religious right can duke it out with the courts and American females all it pleases, but unless and until that Roe v Wade ruling is modified (which I hope it will be soon) or neutralized then all this piecemeal chipping away at the fringes of "right to choose" ain't gonna accomplish much more than increasing the bank accounts of attorneys.

It has gotten to where most of what CAN be done to stem the frequency of abortions HAS been done, with (based on statistics) some positive outcome I'd say... including a dramatic decrease in teenage/unwed pregnancies if I'm reading things properly.

Standing in the way of health of the mother and related matters ain't gonna fly... AND, having 50 or so different State definitions of "choice" and "life" hasn't been as effective as we need it to be either.

AND, for sure, whether it's choice or life, I do not want to have my tax money being used to pay for the dispute.

Source:
BREITBART.COM 4.22.08
--------------------------------------------------

"Nearly 70 percent of Italian gynecologists now refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds and the number is increasing, a report by the country's ministry of health said Tuesday.

Abortion was legalised in 1978 in Italy but pressure from the Vatican -- which is strongly opposed to abortion -- enabled doctors to claim a "conscientious objection" clause and refuse to carry out terminations.

Between 2003 and 2007 the number of gynecologists claiming the conscience clause to avoid carrying out abortions rose from 58.7 percent to 69.2 percent, according to the report.

For anesthetists helping in abortions, the figure of those refusing to participate rose from 45.7 percent to 50.4 percent.

"In the south, this increase is even more pronounced and in certain areas the rate has almost doubled," the report adds. In Campania, the region around Naples, the proportion of gynecologists refusing to carry out the procedure reached 83 percent, and in Sicily 84.2 percent.

Meanwhile, the number of abortions has dropped slightly. Between 2006 and 2007 it fell from 131,018 to 127,038, a decrease of three percent.

Illegal abortions are also declining, according to the ministry, and stand at around 15,000 a year.

"Abortion law is in danger", with the option to have a termination "more and more resembling an obstacle course," Milan gynecologist and pro-choice advocate Silvio Viale told ANSA news agency.

Attacks on the right to abortion became a major issue in the recent legislative elections, with polemics from the Catholic Church, and the creation of an anti-abortion party by a close friend of Silvio Berlusconi, journalist Giulio Ferrara -- although he only received 0.37 percent of the vote.

A police raid on an abortion clinic in Naples to check it was obeying the 24-week upper limit on terminations aroused great controversy recently."

Although abortions performed for the life and/or health of the mother are extremely rare (in fact, hardly every really necessary for that reason,) there are always scumbag doctors that will give such a determination to any woman who would ask.

To bad we don't have access to immaculent abortion and conception.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Webb:
... there are always scumbag doctors that will give such a determination to any woman who would ask.

I've heard that to be so... and if so, it simply adds weight to the political vs the medical rationale... to everyone's detriment.

Roe v Wade made it political, when it should have remained medical, and should still.

Gianna Jessen; singer, marathon runner.

Yes, just one name, but that one name represents a issue some do not want to discuss.

The right of aborted babies born alive. There are those whom feel those babies still have no rights; perhaps one or more of them is running for President. Do they have rights?

Gianna and others like her do have handicaps, but many have overcome them.

Sorry for being a little politcal, but there are many others out there and this is a issue beyond Roe vs Wade.

By the way; Gianna was a late term abortion on the advice of Planned parenthood. Was the reason a valid medical reason; from what I understand the answer is no.

quote:

Originally posted by For Fair Play:
The right of aborted babies born alive...

What does that ^ mean?

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Bell:

quote:

Originally posted by For Fair Play:
The right of aborted babies born alive...

What does that ^ mean?

That means the abortion by saline solution "failed". The child was delivered alive. Search Ted Harvey as a easy way to see Gianna's Story. Just remember, though there are others like her.

There are politicians that perhaps question the right to force the medical community to keep an aborted child born alive; alive. Yet there are those like Gianna.

quote:

Originally posted by For Fair Play:
There are politicians that perhaps question the right to force the medical community to keep an aborted child born alive; alive.

There are?

Why would the "medical community" imagine that it had an obligation or right to terminate the life of a baby that survived the abortion procedure?

This is weird beyond words...

If any of you would bother to read the majority opinion in Roe v Wade you would know that the court deemed it a privacy issue, not a "right to life" one. They were concerned about States and lower courts wrangling with these very issues. And the minute the State legislature is involved, it becomes a political issue and there is no telling what kinds of idiotic rules they will come up with. You know what I mean, John? Like 3/2 beer or you can have nude dancers in a juice bar but if you serve beer they have to have g-strings and pasties? State legislatures defy logic, and any law they write will be tailored to satisfy political interests--and won't give a damn about the health of the mother or the life of the child.

As for those who think this will be settled if Roe v Wade is overturned, dream on. It will go back to the way it was--women who can afford it will go outside the country for abortions and women who cannot will go to back-alley procedures. Like drugs or anything else--you can't make it go away with the stroke of a pen or the threat of jail. You have to provide alternatives and change minds or you're wasting your time.

This represents the standard feminist position since Roe v Wade got turned into the holier than thou shibboleth of a "Woman's Right To Choose"... which is where we have all been bogged down ever since.

RvW wouldn't have to be overturned for it to be modified favorably in keeping with reasonable limitations about abortion on demand.

Naturally, most Feminists take the view that ANY modification constitutes a limitation on some overarching "right" they claim to have to do anything they please anytime they please for any reason they please just because they are females.

Nobody is going to "return to the days of back alley butchers" or "coat hangers" and all that nonsense... which is just another scare tactic used by proponents.

But, neither should we be tolerating the other extreme and one wonders how it might be that those who believe in unfettered "right to choose" could so often find themselves being vehemently against other physical trauma such as waterboarding.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kirkman:
If any of you would bother to read the majority opinion in Roe v Wade you would know that the court deemed it a privacy issue, not a "right to life" one. They were concerned about States and lower courts wrangling with these very issues. And the minute the State legislature is involved, it becomes a political issue and there is no telling what kinds of idiotic rules they will come up with. You know what I mean, John? Like 3/2 beer or you can have nude dancers in a juice bar but if you serve beer they have to have g-strings and pasties? State legislatures defy logic, and any law they write will be tailored to satisfy political interests--and won't give a damn about the health of the mother or the life of the child.

As for those who think this will be settled if Roe v Wade is overturned, dream on. It will go back to the way it was--women who can afford it will go outside the country for abortions and women who cannot will go to back-alley procedures. Like drugs or anything else--you can't make it go away with the stroke of a pen or the threat of jail. You have to provide alternatives and change minds or you're wasting your time.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Bell:
Nobody is going to "return to the days of back alley butchers" or "coat hangers" and all that nonsense... which is just another scare tactic used by proponents.

If the far-right is successful in obtaining an outright ban on ALL abortions--which is a stated goal of many of those organizations, then those days would most certainly return.
I do not support abortion as a substitute for birth control, nor do I accept the feminist assertion that it is a "right" that somehow supersedes the right to life. But I am concerned about the privacy aspect, and the value of limiting the State's control over both right to life and right to die issues--and I acknowledge that in some medical instances and circumstances--such as familial rape--abortion may be justifiable. But look at it this way--if the court has the power to block an abortion, isn't it conceivable the court could obtain the power to force an individual to have one against her will? Is either a power we want to grant judges and legislators?

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Bell:
But, neither should we be tolerating the other extreme and one wonders how it might be that those who believe in unfettered "right to choose" could so often find themselves being vehemently against other physical trauma such as waterboarding

Interesting point, not unlike the inconsistency of those who revere the sanctity of life, oppose assisted suicide, but support the death penalty. And the political inconsistency of those who oppose social programs like AFDC, but also oppose abortion or the sale birth-control drugs like RU-486. Is life still precious if one lives in squalor?